Amy Goodman, per usual, sums up the story well in her headlines segment this morning:
Ex-CIA Officer Sues Agency For Firing Him Over Iraq WMD Claims
[A] former CIA officer has sued the agency claiming that he was wrongly fired for questioning the agency’s view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In 2001 — a year before the Iraq invasion — the officer reported that an informant told him that Iraq had abandoned its uranium enrichment program. However, the CIA officer charges that the agency never shared the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers.The officer — who had worked for 20 years at the agency — was fired last year. His attorney compared his case to that of Valerie Plame. …
The former CIA agent’s lawyer, Roy Krieger, said, “In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed.”
“Spy’s Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says,” in today’s NYT, reports that “the former officer says that he learned in 2003 that he was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation and accused of having sex with a female contact, a charge he denies … [then] the agency’s inspector general’s office informed him that he was under investigation for diverting to his own use money earmarked for payments to informants (which he also denies].
I think the phrase is “getting even.”
“officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D.”
True–but let’s not miss the chance to be more pointed and more accurate:
information on W.M.D.
I’ve read a lot of similar accounts over the years. Misappropriating money intended for agents is one of the recurring accusations made against of dissenting agents.
Has anybody ever successfully sued a government agency?
I would love to see it happen.
It happens every day.
The harder question is, has any secret agent ever successfully sued for breach of an employment contract.
As a general rule, that isn’t allowed under recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The issue in this case is whether the person qualifies as a secret agent? The argument against is that this person is probably a desk analyst who does not operate undercover. The argument for is that intelligence secrets may need to be revealed for the government to make a valid defense of the claim.